m 522 
03 fl4 
1882 
Jopy 1 



BE OF RULES OR INSTRUCTIONS 



FOR THE GOVERNMENT OP 



COUNTY SURVEYORS 



IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES. 



PREPARED BY 

CHARLES TOWNSEND, 

Secretary of State, 



AND APPROVED BY 



Governor CHARLES FOSTER, 

In Pursuance of Section 131 of the Revised Statutes 
of Ohio. 



COLUMBUS: 

«. J. BRAND A CO., STATE PRINTERS. 
1882. 



L 




: 



C^ ^0* 



1 I 



A 

CODE OF RULES OR INSTRUCTIONS 

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF 

COUNTY SURVEYORS 

IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIFS. 



* PREPARED BY 

CHARLES TOWNSEND, ^ 

Secretary of State, ~-\\ 

AND APPROVED BY -^J 



Governor CHARLES FOSTER, 

In Pursuance of Section 131 of the Revised Statutes 
of Ohio, June, A.D. 1882. 



COLUMBUS: 

G. J. BRAND A CO., STATE PRINTERS. 

1882. 






%%^ 



n- 






4 

1" 



PREFACE. 



In pursuance of Section 131 of the Revised 
Statutes of Ohio, the Secretary of State has pre- 
pared the following "Code of Rules or Instructions 
for County Surveyors. 7 ' 

Being sensible that much learning and great 
experience are required in providing a suitable 
"code of rules or instructions," and acting in con- 
cord with the State Association of County Sur- 
veyors, I asked and received a small appropria- 
tion, by act of the 65th General Assembly, to pay 
for the services of practical and experienced as- 
sistants. I employed as such assistants' B. F. 
Bowen, Esq., aided by James Caren, Esq., both of 
Columbus, Ohio. This work, I hope, attests the 
wisdom of the selection. Much credit is due 
these gentlemen, and especially Mr. Bowen, in the 
preparation of this publication. 



_ 4 — 

The preparation of this work has been at- 
tended with some difficulty. It was important 
to adopt a good plan, and carry it out sufficiently 
in detail. How effectually this has been done, 
experience and time will determine. It may 
reasonably be hoped that the labor has not been 

in vain. 

Charles Townsend, 

Secretary of State. 



X 






BOUNDARIES OF OHIO. 



Congress, on April 30, 1802, passed " an act to enable 
the people of the eastern division of the territory north- 
west of the river Ohio, to form a constitution and State 
government, and for the admission of such State into the 
Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and 
for other purposes.'' Vol. 2, p. 173. 

Virginia had previously acquired title to the territory 
north-west of the river Ohio, by a charter granted by 
King James, bearing date May 23, 1609, and had attempt- 
ed to exercise authority over said territory, but without 
much success. 

Civil government was more in name than reality un* 
til 1788. 

In 1783, the General Assembly of Virginia passed an 
act authorizing the Virginia delegates in Congress to con- 
vey to the United States all the right of that Common- 
wealth to the territory north-west of the river Ohio. 

On the first day of March, 1784, Virginia's delegates in 
Congress, for and in behalf of that State, conveyed to the 
United States, for the benefit of said States, including Vir- 
ginia, all right, title and claim to the territory of that 
State lying and being to the north-west of the river Ohio, 
reserving, however, the right to make up any deficiency 
which might occur in the lands reserved by law to the 
Virginia troops on continental establishment on the south- 



— 6 — 

ea3t side of the Ohio, out of the lands on the north-west 
side of the Ohio, between the rivers Scioto and Little 
Miami. 

The title to the north-west territory having thus vest- 
ed in the United States, it was deemed advisable by Con- 
gress to establish civil government in this territory so ac- 
quired. 

After much deliberation and discussion, on the 13th 
of July, 1787, Congress passed the celebrated " Ordinance 
of 1787," which became the fundamental law of the terri- 
tory, and upon which most of the subsequent State legis- 
lation w T as based. 

It was during the territorial organization that most of 
the original grants and purchases of land were made. It 
was within that period, also, that Congress enacted the 
first laws authorizing and regulating the survey and loca- 
tion of these purchases and grants. 

These will be treated more in detail further on. 

Following is the 2d section of the enabling act of 
April 30, 1802, before referred to, and by which the origi- 
nal boundaries of the State of Ohio were constituted : 

" And be it further enacted, That the said State shall con- 
sist of all the territory included within the following 
boundaries, to wit: Bounded on the east by the Pennsyl- 
vania line, on the south by the Ohio river, to the mouth 
of the Great Miami river ; on the west by the line drawn 
due north from the mouth of the Great Miami, aforesaid, 
and on the north by an east and west line drawn through 
the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan, running east 
after intersecting the due north line aforesaid, from the 
mouth of the Great Miami, until it shall intersect Lake 



ii 



— 7- 



Erie, or the territorial line, and thence with the same 
through Lake Erie to the Pennsylvania line aforesaid." 

But the question as to what was the true boundary 
line between Ohio and Michigan was contested, and at one 
time threatened serious consequences. 

Pursuant to the act last quoted, the original constitu- 
tion of Ohio was formed, and a government organized. 
In the 6th section of the seventh article the boundaries 
of the State are specified, and in giving these boundaries 
the precise words of the second section of the before- 
recited act of Congress are used ; but the same are fol- 
lowed by a provision in these words : " Provided, always, 
and it is hereby fully understood and declared by this 
convention, that if the southerly bend or extreme of Lake 
Michigan should extend so far south that a line drawn 
due east from it should not intersect Lake Erie, or if it 
should intersect the said Lake Erie, east of the line of the 
mouth of the Miami river of the lake, then, in that case, 
with the assent of the Congress of the United States, the north 
ern boundary of this State shall be established by, and 
extend to a direct line running from the southern ex- 
tremity of L^ke Michigan to the most northerly cape of 
the Miami Bay, after intersecting the due north line from 
the mouth of the Great Miami river, as aforesaid, thence 
north-east to the territorial line, and by the said territorial 
line to the Pennsylvania line." 

This proviso was probably introduced in consequence 
of the uncertainty which prevailed as to the latitude of 
the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, which, when ex- 
plored, was found to be much further south than was sup- 
posed at the time of the passage of the aforesaid act of 



— 8 — 

Congress, and of the formation of the constitution of 
Ohio. 

Under this constitution Ohio was admitted into the 
Union, but there was no express assent by Congress to the 
change of this northern boundary line. 

In 1805, by a law of Congress, the territory of Michi- 
gan was constituted and organized. By this act the south- 
ern boundary is described as a line running due east from 
the most southern extreme or bend of Lake Michigan. 
It is, in fact, the same line which, in the act of 1802, be- 
fore referred to, is described as the northern boundary of 
the then contemplated State, which was afterwards or- 
ganized by the name of Ohio. 

As the country became better known, and the true 
situation of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan bet- 
ter understood, the people of Ohio became more solicit- 
ous about this northern boundary line, and various ap- 
peals were made to the general government to have this 
question settled. 

In 1807 a resolution was adopted by the General As- 
sembly, instructing and requiring the Ohio Senators and 
Kepresentatives in Congress to use their influence to ob- 
tain the passage of a law to ascertain and define the 
northern boundary line of this State, and fix the same 
agreeably to the proviso contained in the sixth section of 
the seventh article of our constitution. 

This resolution does not indicate that, in the opinion 
of the body adopting it, the line in the proviso was the 
true boundary line. The object is to obtain an act of Con- 
gress sanctioning that line. 

By act of Congress, passed May 20, 1812, Vol. 2, p. 741, 
the Surveyor General, under the direction of the Presi- 






— 9 — 

dent of the United States, was authorized and required to 
cause to be surveyed, marked and designated, so much of 
the western and northern boundaries of the State of Ohio, 
which have not already been ascertained, etc., and to 
cause to be made a plat or plan of so much of the boun- 
dary line as runs from the southerly extreme of Lake 
Michigan to Lake Erie, particularly noting the place where 
the said line intersects the margin of said lake, and to re- 
turn the same, when made, to Congress. 

Under the law of 1812, two lines were run, by direc- 
tion of the Surveyor General of the United States, one in 
conformity with the act of Congress, as copied into the 
constitution of Ohio, and the other as called for by the 
proviso in the constitution. 

The first of these lines was called the Fulton, and the 
latter the Harris line. Neither of these lines was estab- 
lished, nor was there any definite action upon the subject 
by Congress, until Jane, 1836. On the 23d of June, in that 
year, Congress, by an act entitled " an act to settle and 
establish the northern boundary line of the State of 
Ohio," Vol. 5, p. 56, provided "That the northern bound- 
ary of Ohio shall be established by, and extend to, a direct 
line running from the southern extremity of Lake Michi- 
gan to the most northerly cape of the Miami Bay ; thence 
north-east to the northern boundary line of the United 
States ; thence, with said line, to the Pennsylvania line." 

The Harris line is, therefore, the present boundary be- 
tween Michigan and Ohio. The bearing of the Harris line 
throughout its entire course within this State, as given in 
the records, is N. 88° E. 

For a complete history of the question of boundary 



— 10— . 

between Ohio and Michigan, see Daniels vs. Stevens, 19 
0., 222, and Myers vs. Manhattan Bank, 20 0., 283. 

By an act of the General Assembly of Ohio, passed 
May 3, 1878, the Governor was authorized to appoint a 
commission of three competent persons, to act in con- 
junction with a similar commission of the State of Penn- 
sylvania, to examine as to the true location of the monu- 
ments which make the boundary line between the State 
of Ohio and the State of Pennsylvania, and to replace any 
monuments that have been removed or have become di- 
lapidated, on the boundary line of said States. It was also 
their duty to make a full report of their proceedings, ac- 
companied by such maps and drafts as might be necessary 
to a full understanding of the same. 

The commission was duly appointed, and, after some 
delay, commenced work. Both commissions have pro- 
gressed harmoniously thus far, and the examination is 
nearly completed, but no complete report has yet been 
made. 

The decision in the case of Hubbard vs. Booth, 8 0. 
S., 243, defines, to a certain extent at least, the southern 
boundary of Ohio. The court in that case holds that 
"The territorial limits of the State of Ohio extend on the 
souih-east, at least to the line of ordinary low-water mark, 
on the north-w T est side of the river." 

It was not necessary in that case for the court to de- 
termine whether the middle of the channel did or did 
not constitute the boundary line between the States of 
Ohio and Virginia. 






— 11 — 

SURVEYS, PURCHASES AND GRANTS. 

SEVEN RANGES. 

Pursuant to an ordinance of Congress, passed May 20, 
1785, a portion of the territory north-west of the Ohio river 
was surveyed, and divided into townships of six miles 
square. 

The ordinance provided that " the first line running 
north and south, as aforesaid, shall begin on the river 
Ohio, at a point that shall be found to be due north from 
the western termination of a line which has been run as 
the southern boundary of the State of Pennsylvania. And 
the first line running east and west shall begin at the 
same point, and shall extend throughout the whole terri- 
tory." 

It is also provided in the same ordinance that the 
townships, or fractional parts of townships, shall be num- 
bered progressively from south to north, always beginning 
each range with No. 1 ; and the ranges shall be distin- 
guished by their progressive numbers to the westward. 
The first range, extending from the Ohio to the Lake Erie, 
being marked No. 1. 

The tract surveyed and divided under the ordinance 
above recited is bounded on the north by a line extending 
due west from the point mentioned as the beginning, a 
distance of 42 miles ; thence due south to the Ohio river, 
at the south-east corner of Marietta township, Washing- 
ton county ; thence up said river to the place of begin- 
ning. 

The above-described tract seems to have been all that 
was surveyed directly under the authority of the ordi- 
nance of May 20, 1785. . 



— 12 — 

THE OHIO COMPANY'S PURCHASE. 

Congress, on July 23, 1787, authorized and empowered 
the board of treasury to contract with any person or per- 
sons for a grant of a tract of land, which should be bound- 
ed by the Ohio, from the mouth of Scioto to the intersec- 
tion of the western boundary of the seventh range of 
townships then surveying ; thence by the said boundary 
to the northern boundary of the tenth township from the 
Ohio ; thence by a due west line to Scioto ; thence by the 
Scioto to the beginning. 

The tract was to be surveyed and its contents ascer- 
tained by the geographer, or some other officer of the 
United States, who should plainly mark the said east and 
west line, and render a complete plat to the board of treas- 
ury, and another to the purchasers. The purchasers, 
within seven years from the completion of this work, 
were to lay off the whole tract, at their own expense, into 
townships and fractional townships, and to divide the 
same into lots, according to the land ordinance of the 20th 
of May, 1785 ; complete returns whereof to be made to 
the treasury board. 

For the reason that this subdivision was not made by 
government officials, no field notes, plats or records of the 
survey were deposited with the other land records of the 
State. 

Manasseh Cutler and Winthrop Sargent, the agents of 
the Ohio Company, by letter dated New York, July 26, 
1787, notified the board of treasury that they were ready 
to enter into contract for the purchase of the lands de- 
scribed in the act, provided the board could admit certain 
terms and conditions, which in some degree varied from 
the report of the committee. 



13 



On the 27th of July, 1787, by resolution, the above 
letter was referred to the board of treasury to take order. 

By act of Congress of the 21st of April, 1792, the con- 
tract entered into between the board of treasury and the 
agents of the Ohio Company, on the 27th of October, 
1787, was confirmed, and the President of the United 
States was authorized and empowered to issue letters pat- 
ent to Rufus Putnam, Manasseh Cutler, Robert Oliver and 
Griffin Green, in trust for the Ohio Company, for three 
several tracts of land, containing in the aggregate 1,228,168 
acres of land. This number of acres was reduced by res- 
ervations, for school and other purposes, and by the do- 
nation lands, to 964,285 acres, and this last number was 
all that was to be paid for. 

The survey of the Ohio Company comprised the fol- 
lowing lands : Beginning at a point where the western 
boundary line of the seven ranges of townships intersects 
the river Ohio ; thence along that river south-westerly to a 
point where the western boundary line of the 15th range 
of townships intersects the said river Ohio ; thence north 
to the north-east corner of township 7, range 16 ; thence 
west to the north-west corner oi township 7, range 16 ; 
thence north to the south-west corner of township 14, range 
16 ; thence east to the south-east corner of township 9, 
range 12 ; thence north to the south-west corner of town- 
ship 10, range 11 ; thence east to the south-east corner of 
township 5, range 8 ; thence south with the eastern 
boundary of range 8, and western boundary of the seven 
ranges, to the point of beginning. 



— 14 — 

SYMMES' PURCHASE. 

On the 29th of August, 1787, John Cleves Symmes 
petitioned Congress to direct that a contract he made hy 
the treasury hoard with the petitioner and his associates, 
similar to that entered into hy said hoard with the Ohio 
Company, differing only in quantity and place where ; and 
that hy such transfer the fee might pass of all the lands 
lying between the Great Miami and Little Miami rivers, 
and bounded on the south by the Ohio river, and on the 
north by a due west line, beginning at a point where the 
northern boundary line of the Ohio Company's Purchase, 
if continued, would intersect the Little Miami river. 

October 2, 1787, it was ordered that the above petition 
be referred to the board of treasury to take order. 

By act of 19th of April, 1792, the President of the 
United States was authorized, at the request of Symmes 
or his agent, to alter the contract made between the 
board of treasury and John Cleves Symmes, for the sale of 
a tract of one million of acres, in such a manner that the 
said tract may extend from the mouth of the Great 
Miami to the mouth of the Little Miami, and be bounded 
by the river Ohio on the south, by the Great Miami on 
the west, by the Little Miami on the east, and by a par- 
allel of latitude on the north extending from the Great 
Miami to the Little Miami, so as to comprehend the pro- 
posed quantity of one million of acres. 

Symmes, some time afterwards, made a formal appli- 
cation for the alteration of his former boundary, so as to 
include only the last-mentioned tract as desciibed. 

By the act of May 5, 1792, the President of the United 
States was authorized and empowered to issue letters pat- 
ent in the name and under the seal of the United States, 



— 15 — 

granting and conveying to John Cleves Symines and his 
associates, such number of acres as the payments already 
made would pay for, at the rate of § of a dollar per acre, 
and making the reservations specified in the said con- 
tract. 

The President, by the same act, was further author- 
ized and empowered to issue letters patent for an addi- 
tional 106,857 acres, provided bounty warrants sufficient 
for the purpose should be delivered to the Secretary of the 
Treasury. 

On the 30th day of September, Symmes' letters pat- 
ent were issued, and the tract granted to Symmes is de- 
scribed as follows : Beginning at the mouth of the Great 
Miami river, and extending from thence along the river 
Ohio, to the mouth of the Little Miami river ; bounded on 
the south by the said river Ohio, on the west by the said 
Great Miami river, on the east by the said Little Miami 
river, and on the north by a parallel of latitude, to be run 
from the said Great Miami river to the said Little Miami 
river, so as to comprehend the quantity of 311,682 acres, 
with certain reservations, provided that the said Symmes 
and his associates should cause to be surveyed and laid 
out the parallel of latitude forming the northern boundary 
of the tract, from points to be fixed by Israel Ludlow, 
otherwise the patent to become void. 

The north boundary line of Symmes' Purchase is the 
south boundary line of townships two, three and four, 
range four, between the Miamis. 

VIRGINIA MILITARY LANDS. 

We have seen that Virginia, in her deed of cession of 
the territory north-west of the river Ohio, reserved certain 



— 16 — 

lands on the north-west side of the river Ohio, to make up 
any deficiency which might occur in the lands on the 
south-east of the Ohio, reserved for those who, in con- 
formity to the laws of Virginia, were entitled to bounty 
lands. 

Congress of July 17, 1788, by resolution, declared all 
surveys of lands between the Scioto and Little Miami in- 
valid, until it had been ascertained whether there was 
any deficiency in the lands south of the Ohio. It was 
also resolved that the executive of Virginia be requested 
to inform Congress whether there has been any deficiency 
of good lands south-east of the Ohio, and if so, what 
amount, and whether any checks have been provided by 
that State to prevent troops taking up more lands than 
are actually due them. 

This resolution was repealed by act of August 10, 1790. 
It appears from this act that the agents of the troops had 
reported an insufficiency of lands on the south-easterly 
side of the Ohio, and it was enacted that the names of 
those entitled to lands be returned by the Secretary of 
War to the executive of Virginia, with the aggregate 
amount of acres due said line ; that it shall be lawful for 
the 'said agents to locate between the Scioto and Miami 
rivers such number of acres as shall, together with the 
number already located between the said two rivers, and 
the number already located on the south-easterly side of 
the Ohio, be equal to the aggregate amount, so to be re- 
turned by the Secretary of War ; that the said agents shall 
enter in a book the bounds of each location and survey, 
annexing the name of the person originally entitled to 
each, which book, the entries having first been certified by 
the agents, shall be filed in the office of the Secretary o 



-17 — 

State ; that the President should cause letters patent to be 
made out to those entitled to bounty lands ; that the let- 
ters patent be transmitted to the executive of Virginia, to 
be by them [him] delivered to each grantee. 

This act was modified and amended subsequently, as 
to the mode of procedure in obtaining patents, as to the 
persons entitled to patents, and extending the time for the 
location of lands, by numerous acts of Congress. 

It was not long before the question of boundary be- 
tween the Virginia Military Lands and the Congress lands 
west, came up, and the issue was not finally determined 
for a number of years. 

By virtue of the act of May 10, 1800, a line was run, 
under the authority of the Surveyor General, by Israel 
Ludlow. The 1st section of the act of March 23, 1804, 
refers to this line. It enacts " That the line run, under 
the direction of the Surveyor General of the United 
States, from the source of the Little Miami towards the 
surce of the Scioto, and which bounds on the east, the 
surveys of the lands of the United States, shall, together 
with its course continued to the Scioto river, be considered 
and held as the westerly boundary line, north of the 
source of the Little Miami, of the territory reserved by 
the State of Virginia, between the Little Miami and Scioto 
rivers, for the use of the officers and soldiers of the con- 
tinental line of that State. Provided, That the State of 
Virginia shall, within tw T o years after the passing of this 
act, recognize such line as the boundary of said territory. 

By act of Congress, June 26, 1812, the President of 
the United States was authorized to appoint three com- 
missioners, on the part of the United States, to act with 
such commissioners as might be appointed by the State of 



— 18 — 

Virginia, with full power to ascertain, survey and mark, 
the westwardly boundary of the military reservation be- 
tween the Little Miami and Scioto rivers. 

The State of Virginia appointed commissioners, who 
met those of the United States, and a line was run drawn 
from the source of the Little Miami to the source of the 
Scioto. This is called Roberts' line. The commissioners 
appointed by Virginia refused to accede to this line 
claiming a still larger tract of land, by running from the 
source of the Scioto a straight line to the mouth of the 
Little Miami. 

The lands west were surveyed and divided into sec- 
tions and parts of sections. The territory between Rob- 
erts' line and Ludlow's line, embracing a large tract of 
fertile land, was claimed both by purchase and location, 
and it became a matter of great importance to the par- 
ties, to have established, by a judicial decision, the west- 
ern boundary line of the reservation of Virginia, fior 
this purpose a case was agreed and taken to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, on error. The cause was de- 
cided in 1824, and Roberts' line vifcually established. See 
Doddridge vs. Thompson et ah, 9 Wheaton, 469. 

The court, however, did not advert to the act of April 
11, 1818, the 3d section of which provides, that from the 
source of the Little Miami river to the Indian boundary 
line, established by the treaty of Greenville, in 1795, the 
line designated as the westerly boundary line of the Vir- 
ginia Tract, by an act of Congress, passed on the 23d of 
March, 1804, viz.: the Ludlow line, shall be considered and 
held to be such until otherwise directed by law T ; and 
from the aforesaid Indian boundary line to the source of 
the Scioto river, the line run by Charles Roberts, in 1812, 



— 19 — 

shall be held and considered the westerly boundary line 
thereof. 

Why the Supreme Court overlooked the last-recited 
act of course we cannot say, and we do not know of any 
cause having been assigned for disregarding it. Be that 
as it may, however, Congress took immediate steps to fix 
the line in accordance with its act of April 11, 1818. On 
May 26, 1824, an act was passed authorizing the President 
of the United States to ascertain the number of acres of 
land and the value thereof, exclusive of improvements,of all 
such lands lying between Ludlow's and Roberts' lines, in 
the State of Ohio, as may, agreeably to the principles of the 
decision in the case of Doddridge's Lessee vs. Thompson 
and Wright, be held by persons under Virginia Military 
Warrants, and on what terms the holders will relinquish 
the same to the United States. 

By act of May 26, 1830, the President was authorized 
to pay to the Virginia Military Claimants of lands between 
Ludlow's and Roberts' lines, south of the Greenville treaty 
line, located prior to June 26, 1812, the sum of $62,515.25, 
being the amount at which said lands were valued, ex- 
clusive of improvements ; provided, however, that before 
payment the claimants should relinquish by deed their 
titles to the said lands. The last act upon this subject 
was that of February 12, 1831, which provided that Philip 
Doddridge should be paid the sum of $1,765.68, he hav- 
ing relinquished his title to Survey 6928, for 700 acres, to 
the United States. 

Congress thus' effectually settled the question of 
boundary by purchasing the title to the disputed lands. 

As we have seen, Ludlow's line constitutes the west- 
ern boundary of the Virginia Military District, from the 



— 20 — 

head waters of the Little Miami to the Greenville treaty 
line. The records are somewhat defective in regard to 
this and Roberts' line, but the course, as far as can be as- 
certained with any accuracy, is here given : 

Ludlow's line begins at the head spring of the Little 
Miami, in the south-west quarter of section 30, of town- 
, ship 7, range 8, [between the Miami rivers] ; thence N. 
20° W. a distance of 40 miles, 5 chains and 25 links, to a 
point in the Greenville treaty line, in the south-east quar- 
ter of section 2, township 2, range 15, [between the Miami 
rivers] ; thence the boundary line is transferred to the 
Greenville treaty line, which it follows in a south-westerly 
course till it intersects the Roberts line ; thence with the 
Roberts line on the east line of township 7, range 9, E. of 
1st meridian N. 20° W. to a point in the south-east quar- 
ter of section 34, township 5, range 8 ; thence N. 75° 05' E. 
to a point in section 36 of the same township and range, 
where the line strikes the head waters of the Scioto river. 

The reader will observe that both lines, although be- 
ing straight lines, starting at the same point and diverg- 
ing throughout their entire course, have the same bear- 
ing. The record does not explain this discrepancy, which 
may have been due to the magnetic variation caused by 
the lapse of time from 1804 to 1812, and which, if not taken 
into account, would subtend an angle west of the Ludlow 
line> as indicated by the Roberts line. The variation in 
eight years would be about 25 or 30 minutes, which corre- 
sponds very nearly with the angle between the lines run 

WESTERN RESERVE. 

The General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, 
on the second Thursday of May, 1786, passed an act which 



— 21- 

provided that the delegates of said State, or any two of 
them, who shall be attending the Congress of the United 
States, shall be directed, authorized and fully empowered, 
in behalf of the said ^tate, to make and deliver an ample 
deed of release and cession of all right, title and claim of 
the State of Connecticut to certain western lands, begin- 
ning at the completion of the forty-first degree of north 
latitude, one hundred and twenty miles west of the west- 
ern boundary line of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
and from thence by a line drawn north, parallel to, and 
one hundred and twenty miles west of the said west line 
of Pennsylvania, and to continue north until it comes to 
forty-two degrees and tw r o minutes north latitude. 

Thereupon William Samuel Johnson and Jonathan 
Sturges, two of the delegates of said State, upon the 13th 
of September, 1786, executed and delivered said deed, and 
Congress, on the day following, accepted the deed of 
cession, and ordered that the same be recorded and en- 
rolled among the acts of Congress. 

By act of April 28, 1800, the President of the United 
States was authorized to execute and deliver letters patent 
to the Governor of Connecticut, releasing and conveying 
to the said Governor of Connecticut, and his successors in 
office, forever, for the purpose of quieting the title of 
grantees and purchasers under said State of Connecticut, 
all right, title and interest of the United States to the soil 
of that tract of land lying west of the west line of Penn- 
sylvania, and extending from said line, westward, one 
hnndred and twenty statute miles in length, and in 
breadth from the 41st degree of north latitude to 42 de- 
grees and 2 minutes north latitude, and which was ex- 
cepted by said State of Connecticut in the deed of cession 



— 22 — 

to theTTnited States; provided, however, that such letters 
patent shall not be issued, unless the State of Connecti- 
cut shall, within 8 months, renounce forever, for the bene- 
fit of the United States, all territorial and jurisdictional 
claims whatever, to the soil and jurisdiction of any and 
all lands whatever, lying westward, north-westward, south- 
westward, of those counties in the State of Connecticut 
which are bounded westwardly by the eastern line of the 
State of New York, excepting only from such renuncia- 
tion, the claim of the State of Connecticut to the soil of 
said tract of land, herein described under the name of 
the Western Reserve of Connecticut. 

On May 30, 1800, the deed of renunciation men- 
tioned in the above-recited act was executed by Jonathan 
Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut. 

SUFFEKERS' OR FIRE LANDS 

By resolution of Connecticut, of May 10, 1792, 500,000 
acres of land belonging to that State, and lying west of 
Pennsylvania and bounding northerly on Lake Erie, be- 
ginning at the west line of said lands, and extending east 
for quantity the full width of said lands to a line drawn 
parallel with the east line of the tract belonging to the 
State, were released and quitclaimed to certain sufferers 
by fire, in the towns of Fairfield, Norwalk, Danbury, and 
others. This tract was taken off the west end of the 
Western Reserve, and the present counties of Huron and 
Erie comprise nearly all of it. 

It was provided by act of Connecticut, May, 1795, that 
all deeds conveying any of said lands were to be recorded 
in the town where the losses occurred. 

In 1796, Connecticut, by act, incorporated the proprie- 



— 23 — 

tors of these lands, under the name of " The proprietors 
of the half million acres of land lying south of Lake 
Erie." 

By act of Ohio, April 15, 1803, the owners and proprie- 
tors of the half million acres were again incorporated 
under the name of " The proprietors of the half million 
acres of land, lying south of Lake Erie, called Sufferers' 
Land." 

The act of Ohio, February 20, 1812, recited that the 
directors of the proprietors of the Sufferers' Land had ex- 
tinguished the Indian claim of title to said land ; had sur- 
veyed and located the same into townships and sections ; 
had made an exact partition thereof among the proprie- 
tors, and had expended the surplus money in improving 
roads, and had fully completed everything which the in- 
terest of the proprietors required agreeably to the act of 
incorporation. By this act it was provided that the field 
notes of the survey and books of partition should be kept 
in the office of the Recorder of Huron county. 

THE FRENCH GRANT. 

The 1st section of the act of March 3, 1795, provided 
that the President of the United States should be author- 
ized and empowered to cause to be surveyed, a tract of 
land situate on the northerly bank of the river Ohio, be- 
ginning one mile and a half on a straight line above the 
mouth of Little Sandy ; thence down the said river Ohio, 
along the courses thereof, eight miles, when reduced to a 
straight line ; thence at right angles, from each extremity 
of the said line, so as to include the quantity of 24,000 
acres of land. 



— 24 — 

The 2d section provides that the President shall ascer- 
tain the number of French inhabitants and actual settlers 
of the town of Gallipolis, being males above 18 years of 
age, or widows. 

The 3d section authorizes the President to issue let- 
ters patent, granting to John Gabriel Gervais and his 
heirs 4,000 acres of the 24,000 acres, to be located on the 
north-west bank of the river Ohio, opposite to the mouth 
of the Little Sandy. 

The 4th section authorizes the President to divide the 
remaining 20,000 acres into as many lots as the settlers may 
be ascertained to be, and also to issue letters patent to 
said settlers for the 20,000 acres, to be held by them in 
severalty. 

On June 25, 1798, an act was passed making it the 
duty of the Surveyor General to survey 1,200 acres of land, 
beginning on the bank of the Ohio river at the lower cor- 
ner of the above-described tract, and running thence 
down said river, along the courses thereof, 640 poles when 
reduced to a straight line, and thence extending back 
from the river parallel to the lower line of said above- 
described tract for quantity. 

This tract of 1,200 acres was to be divided into 8 lots, 
and assigned to certain of the inhabitants of Gallipolis, 
who had been prevented from obtaining, their proportion 
under the first grant. 

UNITED STATES MILITARY LANDS. 

The tract of land known as the United States Military 
Lands was granted by the United States to satisfy the 
claims of certain officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary 



— 25- 

war. The act of June 1, 1796, provides that the Surveyor 
General be required to cause to be surveyed the tract of 
land, beginning at the north-west corner of the seven 
ranges of townships, so called, that had been surveyed ac- 
cording to the ordinance of May 20, 1785, (which is also 
the north-west corner of section 36, township 16, range 7, 
in Carroll county) ; thence along the western boundary 
line of said ranges south fifty miles to the north-east 
corner of section 1, township 8, range 8, in Noble 
county ; thence due west to the main branch of 
the Scioto river ; thence up the main branch of the 
said river to the place where the Indian boundary line 
crosses the same ; thence along the said boundary line, 
to the Tuscarawas branch of the Muskingum river at the 
crossing place above Fort Lawrence ; thence up the said 
river (evidently a short distance) to the point where a line 
run due west from the place of beginning will intersect 
the said river ; thence along the line so run to the place 
of beginning ; and shall cause the said tract to be divided 
into townships of five miles square, by running, mark- 
ing and numbering the exterior lines of the said 
townships, and marking corners in the said lines, at the 
distance of two and one-half miles from each other. 

It was further enacted, that the said lands should be 
granted only in tracts containing a quarter of the township 
to which they belonged, lying at the corners thereof ; and 
that the priority of location should be determined by lot. 

On March 1, 1800, Congress passed an act, in addition 
to the above-recited act, the 1st section of which provides : 
"That the respective points of intersection of the lines 
actually run, as the boundaries of the several townships 
surveyed by virtue of act of June 1,1796, accordingly as the 



— 26 — 

said lines have been marked and ascertained at the 
time when the same were run, notwithstanding the same 
are not in conformity to the act aforesaid, or shall not ap- 
pear to correspond with the plat of the survey which has 
been returned by the Surveyor General, shall be consid- 
ered, and they are hereby declared to be the corners of 
the said townships. That in regard to every such town- 
ship, as by the plat and survey returned by the Surveyor 
General is stated to contain 4,000 acres in each quarter 
thereof, the points on each of the boundary lines of such 
township, which are at an equal distance from those two 
corners of the same township, which stand on the same 
boundary line, shall be considered, and they are hereby 
declared to be corners of the respective quarters of such 
township ; that the other boundary lines of the said 
quarter townships shall be straight lines run from each of 
the last-mentioned corners of quarter townships to the 
corner of quarter townships on the opposite boundary 
line of the same township ; and that in regard to every 
such township as by the said return is stated to contain 
in any of the quarters thereof more or less than the 
quantit) r of 4,000 acres, the corners marked in the bound- 
ary lines of such tow r nships to designate the quarters 
thereof, shall be considered, and they are hereby declared 
to be the corners of the quarter townships thereof, al- 
though the same may be found at unequal distances from 
the respective corners of such township. And such town- 
ships shall be divided by running lines through the same 
from the corners of the quarter townships actually 
marked, whether the interior lines thus extended shall be 
parallel to the exterior lines of the said tow r nship or not ; 
and that each of the quarter townships thus bounded 



— 27 — 

shall, in every proceeding to be had nnder the above- 
mentioned or this act, be considered as containing the 
exact quantity expressed in the plat and survey thereof 
returned by the Surveyor General. 

Section 5 of the same act makes a reservation of fifty 
quarter townships, for satisfying warrants granted to indi- 
viduals for their military services, and section 6 provides 
that these reserved quarter townships shall be divided 
into 100-acre lots, each lot where practicable to be in- 
cluded between parallel lines 160 perches in length and 
100 perches in width, 

LANDS OF THE UNITED BRETHREN. 

It was ordained by Congress, by the ordinance of 20th 
of May, 1785, that the towns of Gnadenhutten, Schoen- 
brun, and Salem, on the Muskingum river, and so much 
of the lands adjoining as would be sufficient for them to 
cultivate, should be reserved for the Christian Indians. 

By resolution of July 27, 1787, the board of treasury 
was ordered to except, out of any contract they might 
make for the tract described in the report of the commit- 
tee, which, on the 23d inst., was referred to said board, a 
quantity of land adjoining each of the said towns, 
amounting in the whole to 10,000 acres, the title to which 
to be vested in the Moravian Brethren of Bethlehem, 
Pennsylvania. 

The ordinance of September 3 provided that the plat 
of each of the towns should be estimated at 666f acres, so 
that each town and the reserved land adjoining shall 
make a tract of 4,000 acres. 

It was ordered, by act of June 1, 1796, that these three 



— 28 — 

several tracts should be surv^ed, and that patents should 
issue to said society. 

REFUGEE LANDS. 

Congress, on April 23, 1783, passed a resolution to the 
effect that they had a lively sense of the services the 
Canadian officers and men had rendered the United 
States, and Congress, whenever it could consistently 
make grants of land, would reward, in this way, the offi- 
cers, men and others, Refugees from Canada. 

A similar resolution, with reference to the Refugees 
from Nova Scotia, and promising a like provision for them, 
was passed on April 13, 1785. 

By act of April 7, 1798, the Secretary of War was or- 
dered to notify all persons holding claims under the afore- 
said resolutions, to present a true account of said claims 
to Congress ; and the same act provided what amount of 
land should be allowed to individual claimants. 

The act of February 18, 1801, directed the Surveyor 
General to cause those fractional townships of the six- 
teenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, 
twenty-first and twenty^second ranges of townships, which ' 
join the southern boundary of the Military Lands, to be 
subdivided into half sections, containing 320 acres each ; 
and that the said lands be set apart for the purpose of 
satisfying the claims of persons entitled to lands as Refu- 
gees from Canada and Nova Scotia. 

The limits of the Refugee Lands embrace a tract 4 J 
miles wide, and extending from the Scioto river to the 
west line of Muskingum county. 



— 29 — 

DOHRMAN'S GRANT. 

The act of February 27, 1801, provides that the Presi- 
dent of the United States be authorized to issue a patent 
f or the 13th township, in the seventh range, to Arnold 
Henry Dohrman or his legal representatives agreeably to 
a resolution of Congress, of the 1st day of October, 1787- 

Dohrman was a Portuguese merchant, residing at 
Lisbon, who had given shelter and aid during the Revo- 
lutionary war to the American armies and vessels of war- 

GRANT TO EBENEZER ZANE. 

Three tracts of land, not exceeding one mile square 
each, one on the Muskingum, one on the Hockhocking, 
and one on the Scioto, upon certain conditions, were grant- 
ed to Ebenezer Zane by act of May 17, 1796. 

GRANT TO ISAAC ZANE. 

The President of the United States was authorized 
by the act of April 3, 1802, to issue letters patent to 
Isaac Zane, his heirs and assigns, for three sections of 
land each, one mile square, within the North-western 
territory. 

The foregoing list of purchases, grants and surveys 
comprises the great body of government lands deeded 
and granted during our history as a territory. There 
were numerous reservations, in these grants and sales, for 
different purposes, and as many of these reverted to the 
general government, other provisions were, from time to 
time, made for their subdivision and sale. 

Besides those tracts of land hereinbefore described, 
large quantitie sof land were granted to the State govern- 



— 30 — 

ment for the construction of canals, roads, and for other 
purposes. Individuals, of course, obtained their titles to 
these lands from the State, and the original record of 
entry is on file in the office of the Auditor of State. 

This record of deeds embraces all classes of lands 
ceded to or held by the State, but does not include lands 
sold prior to 1837. In cases where no deed has been 
issued by the State, or if one has been issued, the same 
has been lost or destroyed before record has been made 
in the proper county, the Governor will issue a new deed 
to the original claimant; and said deed will have the 
same effect as if the original deed had been duly pre- 
served and recorded. See sec. 4116, Rev. Stat. 

A small digest, or rather a collection of decisions of 
the Ohio Supreme Court having a practical bearing upon 
questions which may often arise in a surveyor's experi- 
ence, has been prepared and is given below. 

The titles have been chosen more for their plain sig- 
nification than for the strictly technical meaning which 
lawyers might give them. 

The decisions in this State upon subjects connected 
with surveying are few, but some of them are very com- 
prehensive, allowing the surveyor considerable latitude, 
and it is well to know how far a surveyor's judgment may 
be consistent with good law. 

BOUND AEIES. 

"When adjoining landholders, to settle a dispute be- 
tween them about their boundary, agree upon a line, and 
afterwards occupy to the agreed line, they will be cob- 
cluded by the agreement. 



— 31 — 

" But if without such agreement the parties, 
in ignorance of their true boundary occupy to the 
supposed line, which is afterwards discovered not to be 
the true line, such occupancy will not conclude them/' 
[Avery's Lessee vs. Baum's Heirs, Wright, 576.] 

" In Ohio, owners of lands situate on the banks of 
navigable streams running through the State, are also 
owners of the beds of the rivers to the middle ot the 
stream, as at common law." [Adm'rs of Gavit vs. Cham- 
bers and Coats, 3 0., 496.] 

" Where the owner of land is bounded by a stream, he 
owns to the center of the stream, subject to the easement 
of navigation, etc., but to calculate the quantity in a sur- 
vey, no reference is had to what lies between low w r ater 
mark and the center of the stream " [Lamb vs. Eicketts, 
11 0., 311] 

" Where lots adjoining each other on the east and 
west sides were sold at the same time to different pur- 
chasers ; the sales being made by numbers and by refer- 
ence to a recorded plat ; the division lines not being fixed 
by stakes or otherwise actually marked ; and where the 
deed of the one grantee fixed the location of his lots by 
reference to a known and fixed monument on the west, 
whilst that of the other grant 3e fixed the location of his 
lots by reference to another fixed monument on the east, 
and each of the deeds described the respective lots as be- 
ing of the width indicated by the plat, more or less; but 
upon actual admeasurement of the ground, the width thus 
assigned to the lots severally w r ill not make them meet, 
while the plat shows they were intended to meet, and 
that the grantor intended to sell the w r hole premises ; the 



-32- 

surplas ground, ascertained to exist, will be divided be- 
tween the grantees in proportion to the lengths of their 
respective lines, as shown by the plat and stated in their 
deeds." [Marsh vs Stephenson, 7 0. S., 264] 

CALLS. 

" A call for a beech or hickory tree in a forest of such 
trees, is void for uncertainty. 

"The call for a post or a stone, etc., in surveys among 
individual proprietors in an improved country is good. 
All lands conveyed by metes and bounds are presumed 
to have been survey eol before conveyed." [Alsh ire's 
Lessee vs. Hulse, Wright, 171.] 

" When a deed calls for a corner standing on the 
bank of a creek, ' thence down said creek with the sev- 
eral meanders thereof,' the boundary is the water edge, 
at low-water mark." [Lessee of McCullock vs. Aten, 2 0.., 
308.] 

" A call in a survey for a stream not navigable, is a 
call for the main branch of such stream, and the bound- 
ary is the middle of the stream." [Benner's Lessee vs. 
Platter et al., 6 0., 505.] 

" A call ' up the creek,' in a patent means ordinarily 
to run with the creek." [Lessee of Buckley vs. Black- 
well's heirs, 10 0., 508.] 

" Where a deed calls for an object on the bank of a 
stream, thence . west, thence south, thence east, thence 
north to the bank of the stream, and with the course of 
the bank to the place of beginning, the stream at low- 
water mark is the boundary." [Lamb vs. Ricketts, 11 0., 
311.] 



-33 — 

" When a deed calls for natural objects, and an older 
surveyed line, under a mistaken supposition that they 
correspond, if it turn out that they do not correspond, 
and the elder line can only be found by compass and 
chain, while the natural objects are clearly identified, the 
latter must govern." [Hare vs. Lessee of Harris, 14 O., 
529.] 

u When a patent contains a call for a corner and line 
not established at the time of the survey, it is not a con- 
trolling call, and will not govern course and distance. 

"The call for the corner and line of A., in a patent, is 
to be taken as a call for a corner and line, as established 
at the date of the survey, and not as they may be estab- 
lished by A. in subsequently surveying his entry." [Gal- 
loway and Mitchell vs. Brown's Lessee, 16 0., 428.] - 

COUNTY SURVEYOR. 

" By our statute, no resurve y made after the first of 
June, 1831, except made by the County Surveyor or his 
deputy, can be received as evidence, unless made by mu- 
tual agreement in writing signed by the parties. 

" If the plat of survey is rejected, the surveyor will 
not be permitted to relate orally his doings while sur- 
veying." [Hunt's Lessee vs. McHenry and Williams, 
Wright, 599.] 

DESCRIPTION. 

" Seventy acres in south-west corner good, and in- 
cludes the land in an equal square." [Lessee of M. Walsh 
vs. Ringer, 2 0., 328.] 

" The general position of the land conveyed is given 
2 



— 34 — 

with sufficient certainty. It is in the south-west corner. 
According to the rules of decision, both in this State and 
in Kentucky, that corner is a base point from which two 
sides of the land conveyed shall extend an equal distance, 
so as to include, by parallel lines, the quantity conveyed. 
From this point the section lines extend north and east, 
so as to ft-K the boundary west and south ; the east and 
north boundaries only are to be established by construc- 
tion, and the rule referred to gives them with sufficient 
certainty," [2 0., 334.] 

" Where a deed describes a line of the land conveyed, 
by a line running to the Cuyahoga river, at low-water mark; 
thence up the river at low-water mark, etc., held that it did 
not pass title to the land within the bed of the river." 
[Hopkins vs. Kent, 9 0., 14.] 

LOCATION. 

" If, after actual survey, the corners and lines cannot 
be ascertained, resort is had to the courses and distances of 
lines, described in the conveyance, which are run out by 
surveyors on the land. The law holds the courses and 
distances called for in the lines of the deed, as less to be 
relied upon than fixed monuments, or actual lines, and 
therefore only to be resorted to to ascertain the land con- 
veyed, when the other and better evidence cannot be had. 
Where the objects called for in the deed are found, or the 
place where they stood is found, they will control the 
course and distance 'of the lines described, and the lines 
will be run from object to object to close the survey, 
though they vary both in the course and in the distance 
from the call for them in the conveyance." [See Wright, 
R., p. 172, cited on page — .] 



— 35 — 

" In locating a deed upon land, the rule is, first, to 
find the original lines as actually run ; second, to run'lines 
from acknowledged corners or calls ; third, lines run ac- 
cording to the courses and distances called for in the 
deed." [Avery's Lessee vs. Baum's heirs, Wright, 576.] 

" Where a chain of entries of land in the Virginia 
Military District are made dependent upon each other, 
each calling for a line of a specified distance, and the next 
commencing at the termination of that distance, the ac- 
tual location of each must be ascertained by measuring 
the number of polls called for in the entry. An exten- 
sion of these distances is not allowable upon an alleged 
custom of extending at a distance of five per cent." [Hus- 
ton vs. McArthur, 7 0., 383.] 

" There is no inflexible rule for running the open or 
lost lines of a survey. 

" Each case depends upon its own circumstances." 
[Lessee of Bishop et al. vs. McMullen et al., 5 0. 8., 19.] 

U. S. SURVEYS. 

" Where government land has been run into sections, 
and patented by the number, the patent covers the land 
actually surveyed, whether the lines were run straight ac- 
cording to the law or not. 

" The question in such cases is, where was the line 
originally run, not where it ought to have been run?" 
[Hunt's Lessee vs. McHenry and Williams, Wright, 599.] 

"The act of Congress of 1805 makes the lines and 
corners of the government surveys, as now established 
and recorded, the true line of the survey, and the quan- 
tity of land the true quantity, whether accurate or not. 



— 36 — 

"The courts cannot change this law, nor correct errors 
in the survey, by which they deviate from the directions 
of the law under which the public lands were surveyed." 
[Bayless' Lessee vs. Eupert, Wright, 635.] 

" In executing surveys under the laws of the United 
States, the mere marking a corner by the surveyor estab- 
lishes no boundary, but such marked corner is controlled 
by the actual division lines subsequently made, field notes 
of which are returned to the proper officers, and pre- 
served according to law." [Lessee of Eeed vs. Marsh, 8 
0., 147.] 

" The survey of an entry in the Virginia Military Dis- 
trict limits the grant to the calls in the survey. 

" Where there is a discrepancy in the calls, the line 
actually run is to be found by having recourse to the more 
certain, fixed and natural objects called for in the bound- 
ary." [Lessee of Wyckoff vs. Stephenson, 14 0., 13.] 

" Some of the original surveys in this State having 
been made by the magnetic and some by the true merid- 
ian, a call 'due west,' made in a contract for the subdi- 
vision of an original section, has not a determinate 
meaning fixed by judicial interpretation. Where the 
original survey has been made by the magnetic meridian, 
and subdivisions of the section have afterwards been 
made, there arises a strong, perhaps conclusive presump- 
tion, that such subdivision lines were intended to be run 
by the magnetic meridian. But even when the original 
survey was made by the true meridian, new subdivision 
lines, unless so made in reference to the original courses, 
as to manifest an intention to be controlled by the origi- 
nal courses, would, in general, be run by the magnetic 
meridian as that is the general usage in running lines. 



-37 — 

The question, however, must be deemed, in general, a 
mixed one of fact and law, to be determined by the terms 
of the calls and extraneous circumstances." [McKinney 
et al. vs. McKinney et al., 8 0. S., 423.] 

" An original surveyed township, was divided into 
sections ' by running through the same, each way, par- 
allel lines at the end of every two miles, and making a 
corner on each of the lines at the end of every mile ; ' 
and afterward a supplemental survey was made, under a 
subsequent statute, which directed that these two-mile 
blocks should be subdivided ' by running straight lines 
from the mile corners thus marked to the opposite corre- 
sponding corners.' Held, That where the original mile 
corners in a certain block can be clearly identified, the 
courses of the lines of subdivision within the block can- 
not be determined by proof of monuments, blazes, or 
other witness found in other blocks in the township." 
[Ginn vs. Brandon, 29 0. S., 656.] 

" In 1820, under the direction of the Surveyor Gen- 
eral of the district, the exterior lines of the township in 
which the land in controversy is situate, were surveyed, 
and the section corners thereon were duly established. 
In the subsequent year one Lowrie was employed by the 
Surveyor General of the district to subdivide the town- 
ship into sections, by running and marking the section 
lines, as required by act of Congress. Without having 
fully performed this duty, and without having performed 
any part of it correctly, he made return to the Surveyor 
General of the district of what purported to be complete 
field notes of such subdivision. These field notes were 
not recorded in the book kept for that purpose, but were 
rejected as * incorrect/ and so indorsed. A plat, however, 



— 38 — 

was made of the township, and kept in the office of the 
Surv 3y or General, showing the subdivision of the town- 
ship into sections, the lines and distances whereof corre- 
sponded with the rejected field notes. The section lines, 
as shown on the plat, were straight lines between oppo- 
site and corresponding section corners on the exterior 
township lines. From this plat sales were made by the 
United States to the State of Ohio of those parts of sec- 
tions one and two, bounded by the section line, the loca- 
tion of which is the subject of controversy in this suit. 
No reference is made in any act or instrument of convey- 
ance to either the plat or field notes, nor does the plat 
refer to the field notes. The boundary between the sec- 
tions is described only as a section line. Upon this state 
of facts— Held: 

" 1. That the survey and field notes, as made and re- 
turned by Lowrie, must be taken and held for naught. 

" 2. That a party claiming title under the State to 
lands bounded by said section line, is not estopped from 
denying the correctness of said plat or field notes. 

" 3. That the line between sections one and two must be 
ascertained by running a straight line from the corner of 
the sections, as established on the exterior line of the 
township to the corresponding section corner on the oppo- 
site township line." [Hamil vs. Oarr, 21 0. S., 258.] 
SURVEYS. 

A surveyor should always be governed by the order 
of the survey. The original field notes, the description in 
a deed, the provisions of a will, the order of court, or the 
plain requirements of the case, may be taken as the order 
of the survey. A correct understanding of these things 



39 — 



is essential, and the spirit and true meaning are to be 
taken. When a deed in general terms describes a line as 
running north, or due north, it certainly does not mean 
the true meridian in every case. A fair interpretation 
would be, a line parallel with those " north and south " 
lines, as run at the time the land was originally surveyed. 
The same construction will apply to any line in any direc- 
tion. 

Nearly all the otficial duties devolving on the County 
Surveyors of the State, are in re-tracing old lines, or es- 
tablishing lost corners. To do these correctly, it will be 
important to know how the land was originally surveyed 
by the government, that similar methods may be adopted. 
It is therefore deemed expedient in this connection to 
give some account of the original survey of the public 

land in this State. 

Fig. 1. 



-40- 

The ordinance of May 20, 1785, provides that the ter- 
ritory shall be divided into townships of six miles square, 
by lines running due north and south, and others crossing 
them at right angles, as near as may be. 

The same act provides that the townships shall be 
divided into lots of one mile square, or 640 acres, in the 
same direction as the external lines, and numbered from 
1 to 36, in consecutive order ; and that the surveyor, in 
running the boundary lines of the township, shall, at 
every mile on said line, establish and mark corners for 
adjacent sections in said township. 

Fig. 2. 



<> ' « 

3\ 


> 4 

30 


t — < 

19 


t < 

13 


« < 

7 


f , 

6 


32 


.29 


20 


17 


3 


5 


33 


28 


21 


16 


9 


4 


34 


27 


22 


!5 


10 


3 


35 


28 


23- 


14 


11 


2 


36 

> 4 


25 

i « 


24 


13 

, — 4 


12 

i 4 


» 



These townships are of the " seven ranges," so-called, 
and the due north and south was understood to mean on the 
magnetic bearingjor'meridian, as the lines were surveyed 



— 41 — 

and located in that way. (The section lines were not run 
or the interior corners fixed at that time.) 

The act of May 18, 1796, provides that the lands not 
already surveyed according to the ordinance of 1785, 
should be divided into tow r nships, six miles square, by 
north and south lines, run according to the true meridian, 
and by others crossing them at right angles. Every alter- 
nate township so surveyed was to be divided into sections 
of 640 acres, as nearly as may be, by running through the 
township, each way, parallel lines, at the end of every 
two miles ; and by marking a corner on each of said lines 
at the end of every mile. 

The sections shall be numbered, respectively, begin- 
ning in the N. E. corner, proceeding west and east from 1 
to 36. 

Fig. 3. 



-<$> 



L_ 

) 

I. „ 



14 18 



— O . — 



I «0 



21 I 22 



23 ' 24 



*3 j SST 



- -* -I- 



| 36 



42 



It will be readily seen that four of the interior lines 
have been run, and sixteen section corners marked, and 
six lines and nine section corners in the township not yet 
located or established. 

The surveyor has followed the general provision of 
the act, except in locating the lines, which, in many 
places, were run on the magnetic meridian, instead of the 
true meridian. 

The act of May 10, 1800, provides that the townships 
west of the Muskingum should be subdivided into half 
sections, of 320 acres each, as nearly as may be, by run- 
ning parallel lines through the same from east to west, and 
from south to north, at a distance of one mile from each 
other ; and marking corners at a distance of each half 
mile on the lines running from east to west, and at a dis- 
tance of each mile on those running from south to north. 
Fig. 4. 



* 


: ©— £ 

1 
1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 


V, 


CO 

m 
p 

CO 
K> 
O 
> 


1 

1 

1 
1 

i 

1 

1 

1 

1 

SECTION 

64Q-A-. 
1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

! 

i 


CO 

m 
p 

CO 

to 
o 
> 


K ' 


• 
i 
J 
i 
i 
i 

g> 


* 



-43 — 

This act provides for making actual survey of the sec- 
tion lines, and fixing the corners for the sections and half 
sections, but the lines between the half sections were not 
then run, but were required to he straight between the 
corners fixed. 

In subdividing townships into sections and half sec- 
tions, each township was divided separately, beginning 
the measures on the east line and running to the west, 
and marking corners at every half mile ; and then begin- 
ning on the south line and measuring north and making 
corners every mile, and in this way the discrepancy be- 
tween the measure of the townships and their subdivis- 
ion lines is developed on the north range of sections and 
west range of half sections. 

The act of February 11, 1805, provides that the town- 
ships surveyed and divided according to the act of May 
18, 1796, as shown in Fig. 3, should be further surveyed, 
and that the subdivisions into sections, as provided for by 
the said act of 1796, be made by running straight lines 
from the mile corners, previously marked, to the opposite 
corresponding corners, and by marking on each of said 
lines intermediate corners, as nearly as possible equi- 
distant from the corners of the sections on the same, 
and in this way, by actual survey, divide the townships 
into sections, and mark the half section and quarter sec- 
tion corners on the lines run, as shown in Fig. 5. 



— 44 — 
Fig. 5. 



c 


H » ■ -r 

6 ' 


5 


. $ 


3 


2. 


1 




7 


8 


9 


IP 


11 


T2 




13 


17 


16 


i5 


1 1* 


13 




19 


20 


21 


22 


28 


24 




30 


2T9 


28 


er 


26 


, 25- 


r 


31 


- 32 


93 


• 34; 


1 36 


36 


\ 


V 













The same act (Feb. 11, 1805,) also provides that the 
boundaries of all the half sections, previously sold, be 
surveyed and marked, by running straight lines from the 
corners heretofore marked, as shown in Fig. 4, to the op- 
posite corresponding corners ; quarter section corners 
were marked on the line at the same time, half way be- 
tween the corners of the half section. 

The act of June 1, 1796, describes the boundary of the 
United States Military Lands, and provides that said lands 
shall be surveyed into townships^ miles square, by run- 
ning the exterior of said township and marking corners 
on said line at a distance of two and a half miles from 
each other. 



— 45- 



Fig. 6. 




This act provides for the survey of the township 
lines, and for marking the township and quarter township 
corners ; but does not require the interior of quarter 
township lines to be run. 

The act of March 1, 1800, provides, how T ever, that the 
interior or quarter township lines shall be run straight from 
the quarter township corners as originally marked, although 
they may be found at unequal distances from the respect- 
ive corners of such township. 

The intersection of the quarter township lines so ran 
will therefore be the true interior corner common to all 
the quarters. 

The act further provides that fifty quarter townships 
(to be determined by lot) shall be divided on the plat into 



lots of 100 acres each, as nearly as may be, and that they 
shall be designated by progressive numbers upon the 
plat. 

Fig. 7. 



~$ 



JOO 



330 
100.. 



These subdivisions were made by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, on the plats in his office, and no survey of the 
lot lines was then required by the government. 

In making subsequent surveys of lot lines, each quar- 
ter township so divided should be considered, and all 
its boundary lines determined, which should then be di- 
vided pro rata with the requirements of the subdivision, 
and these interior or lot lines should be run straight from 
opposite corners, as fixed on the exterior lines, and the 
intersections of the lines so run will be the true corners 
of the respective lots. 



-47 - 

The ordinance of 1785 provided that the public lands 
should be surveyed into townships six miles square, by 
lines running due north and south, and others crossing them 
at right angles, as nearly as may be ; and that the town- 
ships shall be subdivided into lots or sections one mile 
square, containing 640 acres each. 

Some of these provisions are theoretically absurd and 
practically impossible. 

These discrepancies were anticipated in the act of 
May 10, 1800, which provides that each township should 
be subdivided separately, and that any excess or defi- 
ciency should be added to or deducted from the western 
and northern ranges of sections or half sections. 

The act of February 11, 1805, w T hich provides for run- 
ning half section lines, required that quarter section cor- 
ners should be marked on said lines, equi-distant from the 
corners of the half section on the same line. It is there- 
fore reasonable to infer that it was not the intention of 
the several acts recited to carry the excess or deficiency of 
a township into the last quarter sections on the west and 
north sides of such township ; but that the more or less 
sections or half sections on the north or west should be 
divided equally, as provided by the act requiring the 
quarter corners to be marked on the half section lines, as 
above recited. 

The exception to this general rule for disposing of the 
excess or deficiency in the subdivision of townships into 
sections and half sections, is, where a section is bounded 
by a river or an Indian boundary line, as shown in Fig. 
8. 




To establish the lost corner c or d — the corners a and 
b remaining — the even half sections should be measured 
off from a or b, as the case may require, 160 poles to the 
missing corner, and any excess or deficiency that may be, 
should be added to or deducted from the fractional half 
section on the east side, and bounded by the river. 



Fig. 9 represents a section closing on an Indian 
boundary line (and should be treated by the same rule as 
Fig. 8). The corners e and / should be located equi- 
distant from a and b and c and d respectively. 




The discrepancies above referred to are such as would 
naturally be developed by the convergency of the merid- 
ian lines, whether true or magnetic. 

There are, however, other and graver errors in the 
mechanical construction of the original surveys, which it 
is charitable to attribute to the difficulties under which 
the early surveyors had to prosecute their work. 

The several acts authorizing the survey of the public 
lands would seem to require the work to be done with 
considerable degree of nicety. Owing to the difficulties 
encountered, this was not done. This fact was recog- 
nized, the surveys so made were accepted, and the cor- 
ners as located and marked were legalized as the true 
corners by the act of February 11, 1805. Then, again, 



— 50- 

there are many conflicts between the written description 
and the map of the land as actually surveyed. When the 
corners of a tract of land are fixed and plainly marked, 
the well known principle of law " That course and distance 
must give way to known objects" shall govern the case. But 
when the corners have not been fixed as described, or 
when they have become lost, then they should be estab- 
lished on evidence ; and when there is no evidence, then 
an arbitrary corner may be established from the intersec- 
tion of marked lines, or from the nearest adjacent cor- 
ners common to the survey in question. Yet the decis- 
ion of the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Wright, 172, p. — 
above given, requires the surveyor to follow the courses 

Fig. 10. 







A 












B 






3 


O 












1- 

D 








£ 










F 




Ui 


I 




z 


1- 




_1 






Q. 


CO 




E 


CJS 




CO 

z 


I 




£ 


t— 
DC 









O 

z 





— 51 — 

and distances. But if monuments and courses and dis- 
tances are all missing, then the surveyor must be gov- 
erned by the order of court given on p. — , in the case of 
Lessee of M. Walsh vs. Kinger, 2 Ohio, p. 328. 

In locating corners of adjacent sections, on a town- 
ship line, there should be no forced closures to make the 
corners meet, unless the original description of the cor- 
ners are identical, as the surveys of the section lines in 
either township have been made entirely independent of 
each other, and therefore each section should be surveyed 
independent of the adjacent sections in the adjoining 
townships. 

If the corners c and d, as shown in Fig. 10, should be- 
come lost or destroyed, they or either of them should be 
re-established on the township line by measuring the 
whole distance on said line from a to e, or from b to /, as 
the case may be, and then fix the corner at one-half the 
distance. If the corners a e or b f should also be lost 
then the surveyor should continue his measures to the 
nearest corner that is plainly marked for the respective 
sections on either side of the township line. But the 
corners at a, c, e should not be used to locate b, d, or /*, 
unless, as stated, the descriptions should be identical. 

The same general rule will apply to the section or 
half section corners on all the township lines ; and also 
to the corners on the range lines ; as it was not intended 
that the corners of the sections or half sections, south of 
the range line, should coincide with similar corners of lots 
on the north side of said line. 

Fig. 10 represents a portion of the range line, with a 
township six miles square divided into sections, bounding 
it on the south, and two townships, five miles square, and 



— 52 — 
Fig. 11. 







N.WiQR. 


N.E.QR. 






SW.QR. 


S.E.Q3. 




6 


5 


4 


3 


2 


1 






7 


3 


9 


10 


11 


12 






13 
19 


17 


13 


15 


14 


13 






20 


21 


22 


23 


24 






30 


29 


28 


27 


26 


25 




. 


31 


32 


33 


34 


35 


33 





subdivided into quarter townships, bounding it on the 
north. The surveys on either side of the line being made 
independent of each other ; the surveys north starting 
from, and those south closing on the range line. And the 
same methods should be adopted in locating lost corners 
on the range line, as above described for township lines. 

Corners may, by mistake, be originally located at a 
different place from where they were intended ; but when 
located and plainly marked, they should so remain, not- 
withstanding there is an excess on one and a deficiency 
on the other side of the lines affected, 

Fig. 12 represents two adjacent sections, the bound- 
aries offwhich were correctly surve3 r ed, but the half sec- 
tion corner c on the line a b was located and marked ten 
rods too far east. The half section lines should then be 
run straight from d to c, and from c to e, across each re- 
spective section ; but a line run straight from d to e is 
wrong, and "would not be sustained in law. 




If, however, the corner c should become lost, and the 
lines uncertain, and no evidence as to where it had been, 
then the line a b should be carefully measured, and the 
corner located at half the distance from a to b, and the 
lines run straight through the respective sections from d 
to c and from c to e. 



— 54 — 

VIRGINIA MILITARY LANDS. 

The act of March 23, 1804, appropriates all the lands 
north-west of the Ohio river, and lying between the 
Scioto and Little Miami rivers, to satisfy the Virginia 
Military claims. There was no provision made by Con- 
gress for a proper and systematic survey of these lands, 
but holders of such land warrant or warrants were au- 
thorized to locate the same on any land, in any place, or 
in any shape, that might suit their fancy, within said 
territory; under these liberal provisions, lands were lo- 
cated, surveys made, lines run and corners marked. 
Then it not unfrequently happened that the owner of the 
land so located would change his mind and withdraw 
some of the warrants, and surrender a part of the land 
surveyed, and re-locate the claim on other lands; and the 
land surrendered would finally be absorbed in some sub- 
sequent survey of different size and shape. Adjacent 
lands were often located at different times, by different 
surveyors, neither of whom could always know how and 
where lines had been previously run. Open lines*, so- 
called, were frequent, and must have been the source of 
many errors and much complication, and to these open 
lines may be attributed many of the overlaps, which often 
occur, by a surveyor running over, or lapping on a survey 
previously made. In such cases, however, the first or 
oldest survey takes precedence, and it then becomes a 
question of record as to priority of dates. 

When an entry of land has been made, and the lines 
run, and the corners located and plainly marked, and sub- 
sequently a part of the entry withdrawn, without further 

-Lines not run or marked between established corners. 



— 55 — 



survey, the corners originally marked "should govern the 
location of the lines,?! although they may ;be remote and 
far within a"~more recent^survey. 

Fig. 13. 






■r " ! 

0A 

1 
1 
1 

1. 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

0B 

H J 

>_ . — — i 


E 
F 


* 



A, B, E, F — 600 acres, entered and surveyed in 1796. 

A, B, C, D — 200 acres, withdrawn (no survey) in 1797. 

G, H, J, 2—640 acres, entered and surveyed in 1798. 

The corners A and B should be maintained as wit- 
nesses to D and C In establishing, or restoring the cor- 
ners C, D, the surveyor should measure off on the line A 
E and B F, and respectively from A and B the exact dis- 
tance required to make the 200 acres withdrawn ; and 
there the corners C and D should be fixed, whether they 
coincide with the line G H or not, as G and if are cor- 
ners to the survey of later date, and may overlap or fall 
short of the true corners on the entry previously made. 
See Fig. 13. 

For the same reason corners established in an over- 



56- 



lap should be maintained as witnesses from which to es- 
tablish the true and legal corner. Fig. 14 shows an over- 
lap. The survey made in 1798 will hold good by priority 
of date. The survey of 1800 is void, only so far as it laps 
on the survey previously made. 

Fig. 14. 




The corner A in Fig. 14 should be perpetuated and 
used to establish the corners B and C. But the corners 
of an overlap should not be used, from which to locate 
corners or lines of other surveys previously made. 



INDEFINITE CORNERS. 

When corners are indefinitely described by two trees, 
as an oak and elm, which are frequently many feet apart, 
the true corner should be fixed half way between them, 
unless the lines therefrom should be plainly marked, and 
when produced to the corner should intersect nearer one 
than the other, then the point of intersection should be 
taken as the corner, whether it is in the center or on the 
line between trees or not. 



— 57 — 
Fig. 15. 

* 



OAK 



/ 



* 



ELM 



* 



/ 
/ 
/ 



*} 



The exact distance of the true corner from the trees 
is void for uncertainty. The corner should therefore be 
established from the evidence as to its proper position ; 
the intersection of marked lines, as shown in Fig. 15, is 
good evidence of its proper location. 

When a corner is indefinitely described by three trees, 
as an oak, elm and ash, in the absence of the intersection 
of marked lines, the true corner should be located from 
the trees, by lines from each enclosing the space ; then 
from the bisection of these, draw lines to the opposite 
tree, and continue until the space is closed and the point 
fixed. 

By this method a fair proportional distance from 
each of the witness trees is obtained, as shown in Fig. 16. 

When corners are more definitely described by wit- 
ness or bearing trees, the description, giving the bearing 
and distance from the corner to the adjacent trees, marked 
and taken as witnesses thereto, the corner, when lost, can 
be easily restored in the same place, so long as the wit- 
ness trees, or any one of them,|remain. When^aJ corner 



A A * 



-58 — 

Fig. 16. 



T 



EL'ty- 



V 



^*- 



MSP 

is first located, the surveyor takes his bearing and dis- 
tance from the corner to the witness trees ; in re-locating 
the same corner, it is most convenient to reverse the 
operation and take the bearing and measure from the wit- 
ness tree to the corner, as shown in Fig. 17, 

Fig. 17. 



®- 






</\ 



if 



\ 









© 



■ 59- 



Th e only doubt of this method of restoring lost cor- 
ners being absolutely correct, is in the growth of the tim- 
ber, and the variation in the magnetic bearing by the 
lapse of time. To take all this minutia into account would 
be a degree of nicety not warranted in the average cases 
in question. 

INDEFINITE LINES. 

The original lines have sometimes been very indefi- 
nitely marked by "blazing" the trees through a wide 
space on either side of the line. The blazes are presumed 
to be the work of the axman who cleared the line and 
marked its general direction. If each particular tree so 
blazed should be considered as a fixed point, and the line 
run from one to the other, the configuration would be ab- 
surd, as shown by the dotted lines in Fig. 18. 

Fig. 18. 



In re-locating lines so indefinitely marked, but little 
attention should be paid to blazed trees, only that they 
indicate the general location of the line. Trees, however, 
that have been marked by the surveyor with two or three 
hacks on each side, in the direction of the line run, are 
good evidence of its exact location, and should be so re- 
garded ; and the line should be run straight to or from 
trees so marked, irrespective of the blazed trees on either 
side. 



— 60- 



FIELD WORK. 






In the early history of the State, land surveying was im- 
perfectly done, owing probably to the cheapness of the land 
and the difficulties encountered, the old-fashioned compass 
and Jacob staff being in general use. At the present time, 
however, there are fewer obstructions and less diffi- 
culties to encounter ; and the increased value of the land 
demands greater care in surveying. To do good work in 
this line it is most essential to have good instruments, as 
without these a surveyor is always at sea, and never can 
be sure that he is right. We would therefore recommend 
the use of a surveyor's or engineer's transit in the field, 
as it is well adapted to the purpose and most reliable. 
By taking the bearings with the needle, and the angles at 
the intersections of adjacent lines from the vernier, very 
correct surveys may be made. Every surveyor should do 
the best work possible consistent with the requirements 
of the case. Theoretically all surveys should be correctly 
made, but practically, it is safe to say that perfect accuracy 
cannot be attained in ordinary land surveying, either in 
measuring the angles or distances; neither is it considered 
essential to carry the survey to a degree of refinement 
not warranted by the value of the land surveyed ; just 
what per cent, of error is admissible cannot be determined 
by any inflexible rule, but should be determined by the 
requirements of the case, keeping the error at least within 
the diurnal variation. 

Whenever a surveyor goes into the field to locate lines 
or establish corners, the work done should be plainly and 
distinctly marked, by staking the lines and setting perma- 
nent corners, conspicuous, and plainly marked, so as to be 
easily distinguished. Corners so planted and marked 



— 61 — 

should be described in the field notes. The corners 
should also be witnessed, by taking the course and dis- 
tance to trees or some permanent object that may be con- 
venient, and the description of the corners ; and the wit- 
ness objects thereto shoifld be recorded with the plat of 
the survey. 

Every surveyor that has had any practical experience 
whatever in field work, knows the importance of having 
correct measures taken ; for, without these, there is no de- 
gree of proficiency in handling an instrument that can 
detect and compensate for all the errors that may be made 
by incompetent or careless chainmen (unless the survey 
is to be made on geodetic principles, the methods of which 
are reserved for some future revision of this work, at a 
time when that refined theory will be better adapted to 
the surveys under consideration.) All lines are theoreti- 
cally straight and level — the length is the object sought, 
and can be approximated sufficiently close by measuring 
with a chain. None but the best steel tape measures, or 
steel chains, with brazed links, should be used, as they 
are easily handled and less liable to stretch ; steel tape or 
ribbon is preferable where the field is clear. In measur- 
ing, the chainmen should carry a flag-staff, for "lining 
in " and " leveling up." In measuring up hill, the hind 
chainman should use the staff for leveling up his meas- 
ure, and in going down hill, the front chainman should 
use it for the same purpose. This method is most con- 
venient, and preferable to " dropping pins." 

CALCULATIONS. 

Section 1168 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio provides 
that " all calculations to ascertain the contents of a tract 



62 



of land, when the survey or calculation is to be used in 
evidence, shall be made by latitude and departure," or 
double meridian distance. This rule is absolutely cor- 
rect ; the method of computing J?y angles is equally exact. 
Either or all methods depend on the correct manipulation 
of the figures for the truth of the result. The shortest 
method would seem preferable as there is less liability to 
error. And when there is any doubt as to the correct- 
ness of the result, the computation should be made by 
different methods, that each may prove the other. Cal- 
culations verified in this way may be regarded as abso- 
lutely correct. Estimates may be made in the field, of an 
irregular tract, more readily by angles than by meridians. 
After the survey has been closed, a sketch of the bound- 
ary lines should be made. Then divide the plat or sketch 
into sections by auxiliary lines drawn at right angles to 
some chosen base, and intersecting some one of the 
boundary corners. The length of the interior lines may 
be readi ] y computed from the " traverse table," or the 
table of " natural sines and tangents." To avoid complica- 
tion and unnecessary figures, the sketch should be di- 
vided into the fewest number of sections consistent with 
the construction of the survey. To go into further details 
here is unnecessary, as the subject is fully treated in the 
text-books. 

TAX LANDS. 

Section 2873 of the statutes provides that land claimed 
by virtue of a County Auditor's certificate, which covers 
only a fractional part of the tract which was delinquent, 
shall be surveyed and laid off in a square as nearly as 



-63 

may be, in the north-west corner of the tract from which 
the sale was made, as shown in Fig. 19. 

Fig. 19. 




The description in a tax certificate is always in gen- 
eral terms, for a proportional part of the whole tract. The 
surveyor should first procure a description of the whole 
tract, from which his survey is to be made, and then de- 
termine the shape and size of the part to be set off. A 
fair interpretation of the law would be, that the fractional 
part should be laid off by lines parallel with the bound- 
ary lines that are nearest at right angles. A, B, C, D, Fig. 



— 64- 

17, shows an irregular tract from which one-third of its 
area is required to he set off in the N. W. corner, in a 
square, as nearly as may be. The lines E, F, and F, G 
should be of equal length. E, F should be run parallel 
to A, D, and F, G parallel to D, C, at such place as will 
set off quantity required. But no survey of this kind 
should be made, in any case, until the time for redemp- 
tion has elapsed. 

LOCAL SUBDIVISIONS. 

Local subdivisions or new lines may be made to suit 
the wishes of the owner of the land, but such lines should 
always be made parallel with or at right angles to the 
main boundary line of such land, or as nearly as the re- 
quirements of the case will admit. 

The same general rule should be observed in the di- 
vision of estates, where the surveyor, however, is required 
to make the division, as directed by the commissioners 
appointed by court to appraise and assign the different 
parts of the estate to the respective heirs. First make a 
careful and accurate survey of all the lands in question, 
fixing the outside boundaries and corners. Then make 
the subdivisions, as required, by locating the lines and 
setting permanent division corners. The surveyor's re- 
port to the commissioners, under whose direction the di- 
vision was made, should show a plat or plats, and give 
description of all the lands in the case ; then a plat or 
plats of the subdivisions, with the lots or tracts numbered 
in their regular order ; the plat should also show on each 
lot or tract so numbered the name of the heir to whom 
each lot was assigned. And then the lots so set off and 



— 65 — 

assigned should be more fully described by " metes and 
bounds." 

Land is often divided by will, which is presumed to 
dispose of all the lands owned by the testator. When 
the land is disposed of by devising to each heir a specific 
number of acres, as may be set forth, a subsequent survey 
for the heirs should embrace the whole, and then the 
subdivision should be made pro rata, according to the be- 
quest. 

In 1865, an estate said to contain 243 acres, the bound- 
ary corners of which are well defined, was partitioned by 
order of court, between three heirs. The commissioners 
appointed for that purpose, after viewing the premises 

Fig. 20. 

LOT I. 65-A. 



L08S<V. 



— 66 — 

(shown in Fig. 20), divided the land by assigning to " A " 
65 acres off the north side, to " B " 70 acres in the middle 
part, and to " C " the remainder, 108 acres, more or less, 
and designating the different parcels as lots 1, 2 and 3. 
The partition, as made by the commissioners, was ac- 
cepted by the heirs, and confirmed by the court, and 
properly recorded. Subsequently "A" and "B" sold 
lots 1 and 2 in smaller parcels, describing each piece by 
metes and bounds, the total acreage of which was 140, or 
5 acres more than was originally assigned to these two 
lots, all of which is claimed by the present owners by 
virtue of their deeds, and for the fnrther reason that there 
is an excess in the whole estate. In this case there is 
clearly a discrepancy between the order of the court in 
partitioning the land and the deeds since made. The 
surveyor, in locating the line between lots 2 and 3, should 
be governed by the partition records, and not by the 
deeds. 

Fig. 21. 

EAST 100 DOLES 



40.AY 



STONE 



- 67 — 

In 1863, " A " was the owner of a tract of 150 acres, 
from which he sold to "B" 40 acres off the north end, 
and at the same time setting corner stones, as shown in 
Fig. 21. 

In 1865, " A " sold the remainder of the tract to " C," 
describing the whole of the 150 acres, and then excepting 
therefrom the 40 acres previously sold to "B." It is evi- 
dent from the shape of the figure and the position of the 
corner stones that the tract so laid off does not contain 
the 40 acres sold. The corners should have been set at a 
point 64 poles from and at right angles to the north line. 
This would require 64 T 9 o% poles on the boundary line. 
This case is clearly an error, and easily made by non-pro- 
fessional surveyors, and may be corrected and the cor- 
ners and lines properly located any time within the stat- 
ute limitation. 

In 1859, " A " was the owner of 200 acres of land from 
which he sold to " B " 80 acres off the north part as shown 
in Fig. 20, and bounded by the deed as follows : Begin- 
ning at A, then west 120 poles to B, then S. 9° E. 122 poles 
to a stone (witnessed by a white oak) at C, then N. 81° E. 
118J poles to the east line, thence with said line N. 9°~W. 
94 poles to the beginning, and containing 80 acres, more or 
less. 

The line between C and B was marked indefinitely, 
but no permanent corners fixed at D. In 1868 a street or 
road was located on the line from C to D. Both "A" and 
" B " claimed damage, and each received the same 
amount of compensation. In 1881 "B" sold the land to 
"C" for a stipulated price per acre. In making the sur- 
vey for quantity it was discovered that there had been an 
error in the length of the east line ; that instead of 94 



-68— 
Fig. 22. 



A\8ji. — — 



• ( L— — 



SarlQd OSI J.S3M 



poles, it actually measured 103 t 2 o 3 q poles, making the whole 
tract contain 83 T Vo acres. After running the lines from 
A to B, and from B to C, both of which coincide with the 
deed, then the question was, whether to run from C on 
the^bearing to D, or run to Eata point 94 poles from A. 
It is a plain rule of law r governing surveys that course 
andj; distance must give way to known objects. In the 
present case, however, course and distance are alone in- 
volved"; and either may take the precedence according to 
the evidence in the case. It would seem that peaceable 
possession, lapse of time, and the location of the street or 
road, would give sufficient preponderance to the bearing 



— 69 — 

to warrant the surveyor in running from C to D, and in- 
clude^the whole of the 83 T 4 o 2 <j acres in the survey. If, 
however, the 94 poles from A had fallen at D, 'ind the bear- 
ing at E, then the preponderance would be in favor of 
the^distance, and* should be so considered. 

It^is fully realized that many difficulites will be met 
with in practical land-surveying, not anticipated by this 
work. In fact, itjwould not be reasonable to expect that 
saiyldefinite rule should be made to govern all the varied 
cases that may arise. 

The purpose has been to give a brief resume of the 
original surveys made by the United States, and the gen- 
eral method of making re-surveys and subdivisions under 
the State laws. It is hoped that in compiling this brief 
work some good may be done for the profession, by a 
more general dissemination of theories tending to a more 
uniform system of surveys. And if this should only 
prove to be the opening chapter into which more useful 
information may be gathered for some future revision, 
then our aspirations in this direction will be fully realized. 

THE END. 



— 70 — 

Executive Department, 
Office of the Governor, 
Columbus, 0., June 24, 1882. 

The foregoing has been carefully examined 
by Prof. McFarland, of the Ohio State University, 
and upon his recommendation I give it my ap- 
proval, as required by law. 

» 
Charles Foster, Governor. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 186 649 2 



